I bet the bunkers built for the Hollywood anti-gun elite are packed with weapons.
I bet the bunkers built for the Hollywood anti-gun elite are packed with weapons.
"As an aerospace engineer, I can assure you that this is something that shouldn't have happened."
Pheww! Lucky you are an aerospace engineer, or we wouldn't have known that! We were all thinking that exploding rockets were just part of the normal routine! Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Obv... I mean, Aerospace Engineer!
Well.. feel free to start your own space-company based on your superior technology!
I know the term. But I happen to disagree with it.
That's why I said, Gods as in: the Greek Gods. Contrary to our contemporary idea about god, the Greek gods were full of flaws, and knew things like envy, revenge, pettiness, and all other 'human' emotions, good and bad. Including hubris.
They didn't differ from humans on a psychological and emotional level, thus... only they had vast powers exceeding anything a human had back than, and immortal life.
We currently already have vast powers. With things we consider 'normal' today, one would easily have gotten God-status in ancient Greek times. Something like a nuclear bomb that could destroy a city in the blink of an eye would only have been considered a god's power back then. All our scientific advancement has brought tremendous power, be it good (medicines) or bad (weapons).
No, we already succeeded on the powerlevel, and this will only continue. There is, at least in principle, no limit to scientific knowledge and technological progression.This leaves only immortality, but with stemcell-research and parabiosis, etc., it's only a matter of time we'll get lifespans of hundreds, and maybe thousands of years as well.
So, as I said, we're pretty close to 'Gods' as the ancient Greek envisioned them.
But true to some extend. As a whole, there is a lot more flamebait, trolling, and "Look at what I dare to say!" (but anonymously) -posts coming from Anonymous Cowards than from people under a regular nickname.
I know, I know. In principle, it's the arguments that count, and not who says it. And it's a fine principle. Only, there is no real reason not to say it under your regular nick, if you're convinced enough to say it in the first place. The fact one doesn't, can have several reasons, but all of them don't seem that praiseworthy to me. One reason could be one is a lazy ass who can't be bothered registering for a one-time comment. But that's a false reason in most instances, since many AC actually come back and comment again and again, and there is no reason why one wouldn't register a nick once, if it's for continuous use on a site you're posting on regularly anyway.
Another reason, is reputation. And more precisely, the fear of losing it. That points to a defect in character, though, since it means you're afraid of saying your own opinion because of the (bad) rap you would get from it. I guess this is where the 'coward' comes into the AC.
A third reason is just liking to be a troll, or finding pleasure in flamebaiting, without giving the opportunity to others to 'get back' on 'your' nick. It hangs together with 'shadenfreude'; either towards other posters, or towards - as is in this case - the person of the topic in question. Which in this case is Elon Musk. And indeed, as one can see, the majority of AC's are often negative and derisive against Elon Musk or his projects. But one lacks the guts to do the same under ones' own name/nick. It's the flair and taste of impunity that makes it extra sweet, it's like kicking someone without any chance of the person knowing who did it. Those kind of things appeal to the lowest in human nature, but yet it's often used, even in more serious r/l situations, as is shown by the Taharrush in Cologne.
While it starkly differs in level, it's the same principles: indulgement of base desires because of little fear of any consequences.
While there is always *some* restrictions on businesses even in a free market (child labor in the West is not allowed for instance), those restrictions normally do not involve price-settings on a private company running a for profit businesses in the free market.
In this instance, it's just a matter of demand and supply. As other have pointed out, it does not make sense to complain about this. People not wanting to pay "3 times more" could just as well ordered a regular taxi-service.
And if that regular one still asked more money: what are they complaining about?
Imagine, then, that Uber didn't exist. Then all people wanting to leave with a taxi would need to pay that regular taxi-service, who asks even more than Uber.
So... why is this a topic? why are they complaining? there is NO logical grounds for it. Whether they have to pay higher prices to uber due to higher demand, the fact is and remains that without Uber, they would need to pay *even more*. So shut the fuck up, I'd say to those whiners.
"This raises the inevitable question. If we ever could clone a prehistoric species...should we?"
Because we humans are gods (in the Greek sense of the word).
Never heard of it.
And isn't it a bit presumptuous for Samsung to call back a whole galaxy?
I mean, I know they are a big company, but still...what ego. They are still lightyears away to have that kind of (gas)cloud.
"?ereht si ohw"
I find it shocking that you find it shocking that little people (this includes dwarfs and midgets, I assume) respect others!
In fact, I find it disrespectful to call them 'little people'.
Because it would invariably clash with free speech, and make an even greater legal mess of things than it already is, and would fly in the face of all former legal precedents.
Any discussion needs a reasonable premise, otherwise there is no sense to it. So if your stance is: "well, it *could* be possible" - in a absolute stance of hypothetical possibilities, than I'll answer as I always do: in an unlimited universe, everything is possible. It's also possible that aliens land on Earth and zap everyone to death who even speaks of copyright. It's possible that God, or the Spaghettimonster, makes a new law that prohibits any IP-laws, except for his own commandments. It's possible Trump wins and makes looking at the sky a capital offence since he patented or copyrighted air (and made the necessary laws for that).
So in that absolute stance, everything 'could'. In a more normal viewpoint, considering precedents and legal ramifications, what you suggest 'couldn't'. If you start making/saying an address illegal, one can as well make saying a name illegal, or a word that describes something specific. After all, as long as it's defining a particular object or something of that object (like the place), one could follow the same reasoning. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to go that route, not even politicians who are in the pocket of corporations.
That said, I'm already amazed the EU court was already stupid enough to go as far as they did.
"It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel"
Ermm, no, it's exactly the same. Why the heck would it be illegal to say the address of a brothel? I'm not following you.
Maybe you want to infer the difference lays in the legality of the original object, but that was the point I was making: it doesn't, normally.
To have a better example than a brothel, let's say drugs (which is more common to be illegal). Now then, imagine a journalist writing that in this and that dancing (including the address) one could buy drugs, would any judge rule that he was 'buying drugs' by providing the address of those dancings? Would he say "well, you made that article for profit, and thus it was for you to make sure if there was any drugs being dealt or not, and since there was, you're now guilty of drug-buying yourself."
I don't think there's any democracy where this would fly.
EVEN if there was, in some country, a law against 'facilitating' drug-use, and one was of the opinion this factual reporting was doing exactly that - and mind the implications such a thing would have on free speech - then still it would be hard to argue he was buying drugs when he didn't, but only gave addresses.
Similarly, if you want to make a sensible - well, I mean an internal logical one - case against giving a link, you would need to do it based on a different law, like 'facilitating copy-right infringement'. Countries are free to make those laws (not that I'm a proponent of that neither, but at least it would make more logical sense), but with some safeguards, I guess one could make such a terrible law. But saying, like now, that a link itself is copy-right infringement is absurd. Nothing has been copied.
And it still makes no sense.
"the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
Nowhere is it mentioned whether or not there has to be a commercial incentive to speak of copyright(-infringement). It's actually nonsensical to claim so. If I write a book, and you copy it verbatim and *give it away for free*.... you think that is not copyright-infringement?
I very much doubt such a premise, yet the court here came up with that.. pulling it out of their ass, clearly.
But this case goes further than that. A link, on itself, does not constitute a copyright-infringement: no copy has been made by the link. Those who made the copyright violation is the party that put it on the site. The link itself is merely a reference to it. If I say: there and there you can find a physical book to read, am now infringing copyright, if the book was made without authorization, but wasn't made by me? In the physical world, no court would even dream claiming that, yet they claim it without thinking if exactly the same happens 'digitally' on the internet.
I don't think this was missed.
It just doesn't matter. A link is a reference, an address, it's NOT a copy of an original work. Even a link to a place where a work is shown which is violating copyright, isn't a copy of that work on itself. Just like, when I give you the address of the library, the shelf/booknumber and reference to a particular book isn't violating copyright, EVEN if the book itself would be an unauthorized copy.
In that case, they should make a law that prohibits *facilitating* infringement, and put up some safeguards, like it has to be done willfully, purposefully and knowingly (in a reasonable manner) that it was infringement and intended as such, with commercial intent, etc.
What it is NOT, is copyright-infringement on itself. A link does *not* constitute (a copy of) the original good; it's a mere reference. You have not copied the work if you put a link to it, therefore the link itself can not be copyright-infringement. A copyright violation does not handle *how* or *why*, and *with what ease* such a violation may be possible, but just the fact of unauthorized copying of the original work. As long as it's not copied - and it wasn't copied by the site which placed the link - there is no copyright-infringement.
It's so clear-cut, yet you always have people (not talking about you) that invent the most outrageous things just to dispute the logically obvious.
I'm not a proponent of making a 'facilitate copy-infringement' law neither to be honest; I think it's a bad way to go. But at least it would make sense, from a logical viewpoint. Now it doesn't. One basically claims infringement of copyright where no copy, nor infringement, was even made (by the party concerned).
"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani